Post navigation

IN a very real sense, tragically so, Islam’s followers run circles around Americans, Israelis and westerners at large. And considering the fact that it is impossible to cite any positive contributions made by 50 Muslim-majority countries – other than perfecting the ‘art of terror’ – one is left stupefied (and horrified) by their ability to continue their rein of supremacy. Outrageous. Enraging.

THE point being, one would believe that just like the Nazis were brought to heel so too would their Islamic counterparts. However, not only isn’t this the case but they are being rewarded and accommodated to the hilt. The urgent questions should be: why is there a dichotomy between two similarly bent killing (ideological and political) machines? and, what can be done to avert the impending nightmares?

STILL, before we address this most critical aspect, let’s review the latest – atop countless others – rewards given to Islam’s barbarians.

(Note: There are no special Christian-only prayer rooms at the airport.)

Many Emirates travelers will be Muslim, prompting the airport to spend almost $250,000 to build a reflection prayer room where people of the Islamic faith can pray. It should be open for the inaugural flight Sept. 1.

“Orlando is truly becoming a global community, and we want to be able to accommodate and provide high-quality amenities for all our Muslim passengers,” airport Director Phil Brown said in a written statement to the Orlando Sentinel.

Right now, Muslims at Orlando International must pray in public or perform religious rites in restrooms. Some also go to the small, nondenominational chapel tucked away on Airside B, just past the security checkpoint. There are a couple of prayer rugs available there. (But obviously, that’s not good enough for them)

Shayan Modarres, an Orlando civil-rights attorney and Muslim, said the reflection room will be a welcome addition for the followers of Islam.

Many Muslims, he said, have felt isolated and uncomfortable in this country after the terrorist attacks of 9-11. But having a reflection room at the airport, he said, “is a great step in the right direction, especially for tolerance and inclusion.”

The room will feature an ablution area, or clean zone, carry-on-luggage bins and shoe racks, as well as directional signs for north, south, east and west.

Modarres predicted the room will be popular with Muslims, who typically pray five times a day while facing east, which is the direction of the holy city of Mecca. “This is the right message we need to send,” Modarres said. “It’s reconciliation.”

LaChristopher Herbert and Nate Maples reportedly learned that a fellow student was reprimanded for displaying an American flag on his vehicle while parked at the school, a decision they felt was unwarranted. To display their dissatisfaction, both teens returned to Mount Zion High School the following day with flags prominently displayed from their trucks.

The story mimicked both the cause and effect of a South Carolina rally in May. Locals in that incident responded to York Comprehensive High School’s decision to dismantle and hide an American flag and pole attached to a student’s vehicle.

Herbert said administrators threatened the same remedy in his case.

“When we got here,” he said, “they was all yelling at us to take our flags down or they would be cut down, and stuff like this.”

In Carrollton, both Herbert and Maples expressed incredulity at the notion that displaying an American flag on school property is somehow detrimental.

“We pledge that flag every day in the classrooms,” Maples reasoned. “Why can’t we show our support outside the classrooms?”

The school insisted it reacted to disruptive behavior by students displaying the flag.

Herbert agreed with Maples, however, noting that the school’s decision was “not right” in this instance.

“This is what we live for,” he concluded. “That’s what our soldiers are overseas fighting for us and everything like this.”

Israel Police arrested a Jewish boy for wearing his tzitzit (tallit katan) as commanded in the Torah, and a Jewish man for singing into the ear of a Jewish groom ahead of his nuptials a few hours later.

No one arrested anyone for subsequently attacking an Israeli police officer, who suffered an injured leg….continue reading….

BUT if your head is not spinning, as promised, let’s segue back to the crux of America’s and Israel’s nightmares. Its basis was laid out in the second paragraph of this commentary, “one would believe that just like the Nazis were brought to heel, so too would their Islamic counterparts. However, not only isn’t this the case, but they are being rewarded and accommodated to the hilt. The questions should be: why the dichotomy between two similarly bent killing (ideological and political) machines? and, what can be done to avert the awaiting nightmares?”

IN a nutshell, patriots must be able to (mentally) eviscerate (and dispel) the biggest falsehood of all, that is, that there is a distinction between ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ Islam! Lying Allah-wash. Hogwash.

This question represents one of Islam’s most popular apologetics: because not all Muslims are violent, intolerant, or sponsor terrorism — a true statement — Islam itself must be innocent.
Let’s consider this logic.

There are many people who identify themselves as Muslims but who do not necessarily adhere to or support Islam’s more supremacist and intolerant doctrines. If you have lived in a Muslim majority nation, you would know this to be true. The all-important question then becomes: “What do such Muslims represent?” Are they following a legitimate, “moderate” version of Islam, one more authentic than the terrorist variety?

That’s what the media, politicians, and academics would have us believe. The best way to answer this question is by analogy.

German Nazism is a widely condemned ideology due to its (“Aryan”/”white”) supremacist element. But many Germans who were members or supporters of the Nazi party were “good” people. They did not believe in persecuting Jews and other “non-Aryans,” and some even helped such “undesirables” escape at no small risk to themselves. Consider Oskar Schindler: An ethnic German and formal member of the Nazi party, he went to great lengths to save Jews from slaughter.

How do we reconcile his good deed with his bad creed? Was Schindler practicing a legitimate, “moderate” form of Nazism? Or is it more reasonable to say that he subscribed to some tenets of National Socialism, but when it came to killing fellow humans in the name of racial supremacy, his humanity rose above his allegiance to Nazism?

Indeed, many Germans joined or supported the National Socialist Party more because it was the “winning” party, one that offered hope, and less because of its racial theories. That said, other Germans joined the Nazi party precisely because of its racial supremacist theories and were only too happy to see “sub-humans” incinerated.

Now consider how this analogy applies to Islam and Muslims: first, unlike most Germans who chose to join or support the Nazi party, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world were simply born into Islam. They had no choice. Many of these Muslims know the bare minimum about Islam — the Five Pillars — and are ignorant of Islam’s supremacist theories.

Add Islam’s apostasy law to the mix — leaving Islam can earn the death penalty — and it becomes clear that there are many nominal “Muslims” who seek not to rock the boat.

That said, there are also a great many Muslims who know exactly what Islam teaches — including violence, plunder, and enslavement of the kafir, or infidel — and who happily follow it precisely because of its supremacism.

In both Nazism and Islam, we have a supremacist ideology on the one hand, and people who find themselves associated with this ideology for a number of reasons on the other hand. We have those born into it, those who join it for its temporal boons, and those who are sincere and ardent believers.

The all-important difference is this: when it comes to Nazism, the world is agreed that it is a supremacist ideology.

Those who followed it to the core were “bad guys” — such as Adolf Hitler. As for the “good Nazis” who helped shelter persecuted Jews and performed other altruistic deeds, the world acknowledges that they were not following a “moderate” form of Nazism, but that their commitment to Nazism was nonchalant at best.

This is the correct paradigm for viewing Islam and Muslims: Islam contains violent and supremacist doctrines. This is a simple fact. Those who follow it to the core were and are “bad guys” — for example, Osama bin Laden.

Still, there are “good Muslims.” But they are good not because they follow a good, or “moderate,” Islam, but because they are not thoroughly committed to Islam in the first place.

Put differently, was Schindler’s altruism a product of “moderate Nazism” or was it done in spite of Nazism altogether? Clearly the latter.

In the same manner, if a Muslim treats a non-Muslim with dignity and equality, is he doing so because he follows a legitimate brand of “moderate Islam,” or is he doing so in spite of Islam, because his own sense of decency compels him?

Considering that Islamic law is unequivocally clear that non-Muslims are to be subjugated and live as third-class “citizens” — the Islamic State’s many human rights abuses vis-à-vis non-Muslims are a direct byproduct of these teachings — clearly any Muslim who treats “infidels” with equality is behaving against Islam.

So why is the West unable to apply the Nazi paradigm to the question of Islam and Muslims?

Why is it unable to acknowledge that Islamic teachings are inherently supremacist, though obviously not all Muslims are literally following these teachings, just like not all members of any religion are literally following the teachings of their faith?

This question becomes more pressing when one realizes that, for over a millennium, the West deemed Islam an inherently violent and intolerant cult.

Peruse the writings of non-Muslims from the dawn of Islam up until recently — from Theophanes the Confessor (d. 818) to Winston Churchill — and witness how they all depicted Islam as a violent creed that thrives on conquering, plundering, and subjugating the “other.”

Here, read Marco Polo’s thoughts.

The problem today is that the politically correct establishment — academia, mainstream media, politicians, and all other talking heads, not ones to be bothered with reality or history — have made it an established “fact” that Islam is “one of the world’s great religions.”

Therefore, the religion itself — not just some of its practitioners — is inviolable to criticism.

The point here is that identifying the negative elements of an ideology and condemning it accordingly is not so difficult.

We have already done so with Nazism and other ideologies and cults. And we know the difference between those who follow such supremacist ideologies (“bad” people), and those who find themselves as casual, uncommitted members (“good” or neutral people).

In saner times when common sense could vent and breathe, this analogy would have been deemed superfluous.

In our times, however, where lots of nonsensical noise is disseminated far and wide by the media and tragically treated as serious “analysis,” common sense must be methodically spelled out. Yes, an ideology/religion can be accepted as violent or even evil, and no, many of its adherents need not be violent or evil — they can even be good — for the reasons discussed above.

This is the most objective way to understand the relationship between Islam as a body of teachings and Muslims as individual people.

MOST significantly, decades of damage via leftist academia and the captured media – having infected generations of Americans (Israelis and westerners alike) through (im)moral relativism and multi-cultural hammering– has come to a head. Boiling over. And it is into this volatile mix that HUSSEIN Obama’s handlers inserted him, that is, to upend America and Israel from various vantage points!

SO the open questions remain: how far are patriots in America and Israel willing to go to preserve liberty and freedom (hallmarks of their nationalism) against Islam’s encroachment? and, are they equipped to fight back against the dangers through a dual track, whether it requires various methods of resistance against Islam’s communal thrusts (papered over by leftist enablers) or literally fighting fire with fire?

Stephen Coughlin is warning us is anyone listening? Who is Stephen Coughlin you ask?
Stephen Coughlin a leading national security advisor and Islamic law expert explains how and why America is losing to jihadists in his new book: “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of the Jihad”.
On page #12 Coughlin writes, “I had entered the Intelligence Directorate adhering to the traditional methods of analysis. Soon, however, I discovered that within the division there seemed to be a preference for political correctness over accuracy and for models that were generated not by what the enemy said he was, but on what academics and “cultural advisors” said the enemy needed to be, based on contrived social science theories.”
It seemed the enemy was aware of this as well. Forces hostile to the United States in the War on Terror appeared to have successfully calculated that they could win the war by convincing our national security leaders of the immorality of studying and knowing the enemy.” (snip)https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/catastrophic-failure